12.1: Introduction
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
Learning outcomes
- Identify the important characteristics of an online course outline.
- Use sound principles to articulate an online course for transfer credit.
- Minimize transfer difficulties for students who take online courses.
As the quote from Dr. Adelman illustrates, students are mobile. They move between post-secondary institutions, carrying their accumulated credits with them in the expectation that the learning they have acquired will be acknowledged by the next institution they attend, that they will receive appropriate transfer credit for relevant courses they have taken and be able to apply that credit to fulfill program requirements. Formal transfer systems have been a feature of the higher education landscape for at least 50 years in North America, and are rapidly developing in Europe (though the European Credit Transfer System) and elsewhere. Online learning has had a significant impact on mobility and transfer: students can and do access high quality courses from all over the world, and deserve to be awarded transfer credit for their learning, where it fits with their educational program.
In any post-secondary environment where transfer of credits is permitted and encouraged, transfer credit is based on course equivalency. Within a provincial, state or national transfer system, course-to-course transfer credit is often established as soon as a new course is developed, in advance of any student enrolling. The process begins when the sending institution submits a course to the receiving institution, with a request that the receiving institution assess the course for equivalence to one of its own courses. Once that assessment has taken place, and transfer credit awarded, a course is said to be “articulated.” For example, a college course on the Sociology of the Family, Soci 220, may be assessed as equivalent to a university course called The Modern Family with the number Soc 235. Or, there may be no direct equivalent at the university, and the transfer credit awarded might be for “three credits in second year sociology”. The transfer credit is listed in the institution’s database, and students know in advance what credit they will receive after transfer for the sociology course they have taken.
In some jurisdictions higher level articulation agreements are often negotiated, such as 2+2 agreements (associate degree to degree, diploma to degree) or agreements about the general education curriculum. Such agreements can be local or statewide but the principle at the heart of the transaction remains the same: transfer is awarded when an assessment of the curriculum, program or courses at the sending institution reveals an appropriate match with that at the receiving institution. The other common way in which transfer credit is assigned is on the basis of a student request: the student presents a transcript, and an analysis is conducted of the equivalence of the courses he or she has taken to those in the institution to which he or she is transferring. Such case-by-case assessments may remain one-off, but may also result in formal or recorded articulation agreements.
Articulation, then, is a process of jointing two or more elements, to allow them to function as a coherent whole (as the femur is articulated with the tibia to form the main structure of the leg) and through this process students can move from institution to institution while maintaining a sound educational program and working towards their chosen credential. Articulation agreements, whether course-to-course or higher level, have traditionally been negotiated locally, either between a university and its nearest feeder institutions, or within a state or provincial transfer system in which institutions are familiar to each other, and relationships and infrastructure are developed to support the transfer environment. They have also predominantly been concerned with the assessment of courses offered in the traditional and familiar face-to-face classroom environment.
Increasingly, however, institutions are being asked to assess the equivalence of courses taught in online formats. Herein lies a central dilemma for a transfer environment—transfer systems are organized locally, but online education is developed and delivered globally.
Faculty who assess online courses may be faced with several challenges: the time available for the task, the level of information available about the course and the institution delivering it, their own understanding of the norms of an online environment, their own commitment to online learning, and their institution’s policy regarding the acceptability of online courses or regarding the accreditation status of the sending institution.
Even within an integrated post-secondary environment characterized by open and transparent articulation relationship, faculty frequently raise the question of whether mode of delivery can affect, or should affect, the articulation of a course. For example, in British Columbia, faculty members from each institution in the BC Transfer System meet every year in discipline-based groups, known as Articulation Committees. These committees operate under the aegis of the British Columbia Council on Admissions and Transfer (BCCAT). Meeting minutes collected by BCCAT reveal that the articulation of online courses is often debated (BCCAT 2005). Issues and concerns are varied:
- Many groups are enthusiastic about converting their curriculum to online delivery formats, and see this mode of delivery as attractive to potential students
- Concerns are raised about quality control, and about assessment methods used in online courses and how student evaluation is safeguarded and authenticated
- Some faculty worry about the use of online delivery for students who need intrinsic motivation, structure and an encouraging classroom atmosphere, especially academically fragile students in developmental programs
- Faculty query how lab, field work, practica, and other non-classroom experiences can best be organized in online courses.
Where such discussions become problematic is where, in the absence of reliable information and processes for assessing equivalence, faculty and administrators with concerns about online learning deny transfer credit to students who have successfully completed online courses.
In some cases, the accreditation of the institution delivering the online courses is cited as the reason for denying transfer credit. In this scenario, the courses are often not assessed. Rather, credit is denied on the basis of where the course was taken, regardless of its quality or content. Carnevale (2002) outlines the “rude surprise” awaiting students who try to transfer such courses.
Concerns will always exist about the quality of some deliverers of courses and programs, including online courses. However, for legitimate institutions and their students, it is vital that evaluators can rely on excellent information about the online courses and can call on sound principles and processes to evaluate them for transfer credit. In this transaction, both deliverer and evaluators have parts to play. The ultimate beneficiaries of a sound articulation process, however, are the students, who can be assured that their learning will be appropriately recognized. All articulation should, after all, support the fundamental principles of equity on which an articulation environment is built: that students should not have to repeat content which they have already mastered, nor be denied credit because of technicalities. Nor should they be credited with learning they have not acquired, especially if that learning is fundamental to their advancement to further study, or a required element of their program (Finlay 2005, p. 7).
Many jurisdictions and organizations publish “best practice” statements for online education. For a good example see the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (CIHE, no date) Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs. Others provide sets of guidelines exhorting their members to be fair and reasonable. However, most of these documents provide little guidance as to what “fair and reasonable” actually looks like in practice. Few resources exist that will assist practitioners at sending institutions to ensure the successful articulation of their online courses, and give the assessors at receiving institutions the tools they need to make confident decisions. This chapter aims to fill that gap.